weekender

Only on the simpliest level is it the same. we are exchanging something for something therefore they are the same? our modern banking system is not even remotely the same to what the OP is describing. What if i do not have enough hours in this bank to buy a new car but mine is ruined in a flood not covered by insurance? How do i get to work? will the bank loan me hours so i can purchase a car? Who makes this car? how do they make weekly payroll without enough hours in their banks? as it is now, they create short term notes that pay interest in exchange for cash to make timely payments to employers and suppliers. do they create hour notes or bonds? they pay 2 hours on tuesday in exchange for 1 hour today? Do you honestly believe that our current system is just like a barter system? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

so this guy is going to build me a new car when i need it? can he do that? thats alot more involved than repairing my alternator. what about the 325 million other US residents that might want a new car? are they all going to exchange some skill of theirs for a new car too? This makes sense to you? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Whats your point? do you think this would work in a broader sense? sure, i can ask someone to fix my cars alternator in exchange for me repairing the hard drive on his computer. Works great on a tiny scale. What about when i need a new car and he needs a new computer? seriously, who is going to build that for me in exchange for what? I cannot wrap my mind around how someone could be so simple minded to think our modern society could work this way. This is not an adult conversation. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Would treating interest income, dividend income, and capital gains the same as income from wages and salaries impact you positively, negatively, or not at all ? Well to be honest i suppose it would most likely negatively impact me. not a ton though, since im not wealthy. I do have a portfolio and am taxed according to the current law on it. not unlike all US tax payers. But all tax changes would be a rounding error on my return. also, my work income is derived greatly from hedgefunds, so anything that affects them, affects me. I cannot predict how much but im sure it would matter some. again though, not a ton since my income is not really that impressive anymore. you might assume that you have a gotcha moment here. not really though. the impact on me personally would be very minor. i dont think about tax laws and what others pay that much. i sort of just go with the flow. that was point of my previous post. that it doesnt bother me as much as it does others. i dont think about it much and when i do i am not that bothered either way. So when i said it doesnt affect me much i really meant emotionally but since you got me thinking. i guess, in all honestly, it does effect me. just not enough to really care. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I even heard a Republican say that on NPR today. As it should. I doesnt bother as many people as you would like. Not everyone thinks the same way you do. You want him to pay more for a number of reasons but one ive heard you state, is fairness. it would be great if life was more fair but alot of people dont believe it is, nor ever will be so, it doesnt bother them so much. i for one am not bothered by it one tiny bit. I'm guessing its cultural. your an academic and your thought process is different than mine. I am a production employee. paid a percentage of what revenues i produce. I've seen people with less skills than me do better. ive seen just the opposite too. I dont see life as fair. i only concern myself with doing the best for myself. I'm not so concerned with others because i dont beleive it really affects me. Raising his taxes would not impact me, i believe. I dont care if it might seem fair. fairness isnt a concern of mine. please dont confuse this with me being immoral. i am not saying im right and your wrong, just the opposite. I'm saying we are very different and for many reasons things bother you that dont bother me. i do believe that by being less concerned with others you can be happier. i could be wrong but your post seem alot more angry than mine, hah. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Wal-Mart, Target Avoid Mining Rule Big U.S. Retailers Are Expected to Escape Dodd-Frank 'Conflict Mineral' Disclosure Requirement That's the WSJ headline, you can find the story on the website. it does require subscription. you dont need to read the story to understand my point though. Why is the SEC involved in "conflict minerals" in Africa?? Why are they involved in anything to do with importing and manufacturing??? They admit they are way understaffed yet they spend time and money regulating something not related to the markets? That has nothing to do with a fair and orderly market. This is exactly what i comment on repeatadly. So Dodd Frank address's conflict minerals but derivatives continue to trade unregulated. the ONE thing that actually had an impact on our last crisis is not regulated but the agency responsible for our markets spends time checking for conflict minerals. What a joke! We need more simple regulation that helps to maintain a fair and orderly market. its not complicated. our politicians are not capable of this. Dodd Frank is a joke. all arguments to the contrary are invalid. (said with a smile) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not going to read through this, to be honest. So im going to ask a favor. Looking for honest and rational responses. Can you or anyone tell me what crime they would be put in prison for? this is not a wise ass comment at all. In my reading there was no criminal activity. Banks were far to over leveraged in a derivative that basically lost all material value. Thats not a criminal act. I am genuinely curious if anyone has found a criminal act in their reading. I have not but am far from a scholar on the subject. Repo 105/108 transactions whose sole function as employed by Lehman was balance sheet manipulation. Seems pretty close to fraud to me. Close but no cigar? Im guessing that was the gov't stance and is a shame. this is why i have said many times. we need more good and clear regulation. for example, right now the JOBS act says you can write research before an IPO on certain companies. Banks still wait 25 days since the SEC has not changed their guidlines to match the new law. That is not clear, two gov't agencies have different laws and guidelines on the exact same thing. What a mess. it totally gives cover to lawyers to use no matter the situation. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

No i dont remember that. also, you keep mentioning self regulating. since that is not the case with banking i cannot address your topic. it is difficult for me to have a factual response to a non factual comment by you. the banks are regulated by multiple private and gov't entities. You should not discuss things you do not understand. Its frustrating to people who do. We have addressed the Standard Bank situation in another non sensical post you started. go back and read it if you want to know my opinion. its quite clear. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I sighed when i saw you responded since i knew it would be of no value. I stopped reading your rant when you mentioned the street regulated itself. That complete and giant falsehood was proof enough for me to ignore the rest of your comments. You have no understanding of the topic. SEC,FINRA, US Treas FinCen are not the street. Nor is the US Attorney for NY or the CTFC...the list goes on. You have no understanding of the topic you are commenting on. Do you never tire of that? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not going to read through this, to be honest. So im going to ask a favor. Looking for honest and rational responses. Can you or anyone tell me what crime they would be put in prison for? this is not a wise ass comment at all. In my reading there was no criminal activity. Banks were far to over leveraged in a derivative that basically lost all material value. Thats not a criminal act. I am genuinely curious if anyone has found a criminal act in their reading. I have not but am far from a scholar on the subject. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>"And yeah these guys got away with it, their organization took the hit and they should have been held personally responsible for their actions and have been arrested for supporting a terrorist state. Defending them in any shape or form is equivalent of defending Iran's actions with respect to human rights and or their attacks on our service men and women." What?? you ARE capable of a coherent relevant thought. You are suggesting that what these men did is wrong and they should be punished by a court of law. I have no rebuttal. Even if I disagreed with your opinion, which I do not, it is reasonable. Why are you not capable of having a discussion like this normally? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>"Defending these guys in any way shape or form is much like defending terrorist actions. Good luck with that one." Why do you keep saying that? I have not once defended anyones actions. are you not capable of understanding that? i defend reason. -you stated we should kill NY bankers. i pointed out that would be foolish since this they had nothing to do with it. thats it. ( i even used quite a bit of restraint not addressing the fact you are calling for the killing of bankers. a moronic comment by itself) -you claimed they were guilty of a crime. i pointed out they were not. you actually agreed with me in a post. -you have claimed many times that bankers convicted of crimes go unpunished. i gave examples of the opposite and asked you to do the same. you have failed i feel sorry for you. i cannot imagine how much you must struggle being angry at things you do not understand. you remind me of my dog, everytime i turn on the Hoover he goes berzerk, frothing and barking. he has no idea what it is but he sure is angry at it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

do you honestly think what your wrote makes sense to an adult? does it make sense to you? you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself by speaking of finance. Something you have proven time and time again to not have a basic understanding of. are you seriously going to try to speak intelligently about the law? I’m not a lawyer but my wife is. I don’t even need to speak to her to understand your explanation of precedent is embarrassingly wrong. For the record, most bankers are famously not WASPs. you do realize the names of the firms are the names of the partners. they sound WASPy to you? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>"Shit this is too funny. You wanted an example of "getting away with it" well here you go!" No, i did not and have never asked for an example of someone "getting away with it". That means nothing. you have stated time and time again that bankers convicted of crimes go unpunished. we are all still waiting for examples. This is not an example of that. actually, if you want to be really technical, since they paid a penalty, it could be argued they did not, "get away with it". "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

actually they did not pay a fine. nor did they plead guilty to anything, like you do with a speeding ticket. reading is fundamental. you once again did not understand the article you read because you do not understand the industry you love to complain about. they paid a civil penalty. I'm sure you will write another long winded off topic post explaining how they are the same. of course, they are not and any reasonbly minded person knows that. Words have meanings. I once had to pay a 25cent penalty for cursing in religion class. was that a crime? You really should try to follow another industry, something you are capable of understanding. even with an MBA, finance is way over your head. long anger and short knowledge and reason. again "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

from page 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19253666 And the drug moeny went to BofA sorry about that http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/los-zetas-laundered-money-bank-america_n_1658943.html these guys have not been convicted of a crime. please show us examples, since you have repeately stated it is common, of a few bankers that have been convicted of a crime and then went unpunished. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Hum this one is a very good one isn't it? The executives helped launder god knows how much money to the terrorist state of Iran for how long? And how much money did they make in the process? And before you go off on to defend these scum buckets remember there is plenty of proof of Iran utilizing funds to fund, train and ARM terrorist groups all over the world especially in Iraq. It is a well known fact that a good number of the IED's utilized to kill and harm our service men and women were bought for by the Iranian government. So were these guys themselves held accountable? Did they individually pay? Nope! The company paid which means it's customers and if they are a publically traded company I'm not sure PAID. NOT THE EXECUTVIES THAT AIDED A KNOWN TERROIRST ORGANIZATION! I'm sorry people have been reditioned for less people have been introduced to the finer points of Hellfire dodging for less! And these guys...and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it was white guys just got a slap on the wrist! If it were up to me, rendition their entire family to gitmo but if that sounds too harsh well we know where they play golf right? Well talk about an easy target. Take them out one at a time at their country club using a nice government issued Hellfire! That should scare a few of these WASPY fucks to behave! Why should these terrorist aiding criminals be allowed to live perfectly happy healthy well to do lives when their crimes aided a known terrorist group who killed and wounded our service men and women in Iraq? I'm sorry. They should have been renditioned or killed like the terrorist loving pigs that they are. For they posed a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the US. nice long post but did not address the topic. you stated that bankers convicted of crimes go unpunished. we are all still waiting for a few examples. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

There actually is a modicum of reason in your post. Not as written but you did, by accident i can only assume, bring up a valid point. why arent they charged with a crime? Most likely because it occurred outside the US and by a non US bank. The US regulators got a nice chunk of change and stopped the practice. I would bet thats about all they could of done. the US gov't would not support tehm going into London to arrest bankers. Not for anything less than espionage. Just my 2cents on that. by the way, we are all still waiting for a few examples of evil bankers convicted of crimes going unpunished. or have you forgot about that? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I made no claim as to if anyone did anything wrong or not. I only pointed out that it would be wrong to kill US bankers for something that happened in the UK by UK bankers. You dont undertand the article and apparently cannot understand my posts. Thats ok, i actualy dont post for you. as to why "they" paid a fine. For the edification of those reasonble minded people reading. They paid a fine because the US regulators threatened to shut down their NYC operation. that would hurt the parent bank, not being able to transact or clear USD trades. The US did this because they were not happy with the parent bank transacting with someone we have sanctions against. Oh and i love this country. I am a veteran. I also work with and train disabled veterans for careers in finance. not for pay but to pay them back. its rewarding, in part, because they actually understand the topic. unlike dealing with you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Any banker/human being caught in adding a terrorist organization or state should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And as it stands per precedent set by the previous administration includes but is not limited to; Rendition to GITMO, introduction to the finer points of Hellfire missiles, having their entire fortunes liquidated as well as having their entire family history and actions questioned and examined and if need be having various members of their family prosecuted. What makes these bank executives immune to the rule of law. And I'm not talking baking laws I'm talking straight up throw your sorry ass in jail if you are lucky law! How can you defend their actions? And remember these actions took place on US soil thus why the NYC regulator had a little "talk" with them. Now do you understand why some of us just don't trust bankers? It's not that we don’t want to trust the field it's just that well more often than not the field just can't be trusted. And maybe just maybe, if some of these guys were to end up in orange jump suits being water boarded their fellow banking executives will think twice before they broke the law? I clearly stated i am not defending any persons, i am standing up for reason. You stated we should kill US bankers for something that happened in the UK. also, this did not happen in the US as you falsly claim. US regulators got involved because they were USD trades. the transactions were originated and terminated at European banks in the UK and Middle East. they were cleared in the US and only after any trace of Iran was removed from the trades. You do not understand any of that, i know. You really should just stop reading the financial papers because you are not capable of comprehending the subject. You are angry at something you cannot understand. it must be so frustrating. I feel sorry for you, i really do. you are long anger and short knowledge or reason. again. i know this all goes over your head and i only post it so more reasonable people here see how clueless you are. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

OK so find them where ever they are and either rendition their asses to GITMO or introduce them to the wrong end of a hell fire. Extra points will be give if said introduction were made in front of their other banking buddies. You can't be defending these guys an you? I mean come on they aided and abetted a terrorist state! Last I knew according to the Bush doctrine this was grounds for a good killing or a good water boarding. But let me guess....it's somehow the fault of someone else why the executives did what they did? I'm defending reason not these men. You suggested our gov't should kill US bankers while this happened at a UK bank in the UK. If you are a real person who has these actual thoughts, please get some help. It cannot be healthy to be so angry at things you so cleary do no understand. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Well I don't blame you much of the time I'm a bit over to the top just for kicks but this one really pissed me off! Why don't we have predators flying around wallstreet blowing these SOBs off the face of the earth for aiding terrorists! because these executives dont work on wall street. as a matter of fact they dont even work in the US. I suppose your sensitive about Iran but you need to take a breath and read the actual news articles your referencing. UK bank hinding Iran transactions in the UK. Your long anger and short knowledge and reason. Again. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

can you criminally prosecute employees of a London bank for not following US laws re: banking with Iran? Not sure you can. You certainly can fine them, and you can pull their ability to do business. This should help. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/19172065 it didnt help, hah. i read it a few times and it is a very complicated situation that has no cut and dry answer. its not like it was a US bank or even a UK bank doing shady things in the US. It happened in the UK by a UK bank that does some business in the US. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

1) I'm not sure how to regulate CDS's more. I know very little about them to be honetst. my best guess is limit the amount that can be sold vs your ability to pay them. I would not be surprised if these rules already exist and the amount of defaults were just never predicted. If thats true then adjust the model to reflect the new reality. I'm talking out my ass though, i know nothing about it. 2) i really doubt that would work. In order for there to be enough money to loan, banks must move the loans off the books. Investors have no interest in individual loans, historically speaking. They must be packaged up to limit risk. yes, it seems odd that the derivative was created to limit risk when in reality they are what brought down the industry. There is no easy solution but it would be smart to start by limiting the amount any one investor can buy. also, limit the amount of CDS's they can buy. They will be far less leveraged if they cannot hedge. I doubt BEST, LEHM and MLCO would have been so long the mortgages if they didnt believe AIG would pay their loses. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

For the most part the sub prime mess is the govs fault Indeed, deregulation caused a huge mess. The banks were free to fuck us over. not to start a big thing but i dont see how deregulation caused the problem. these derivatives were never regulated to begin with. If they had perhaps BEST, MLCO and LEHM would not have owned so many of them. Then they would not have collapsed and... we know the rest. so maybe its splitting hairs but there was a failure to regulate, IMO, not a deregulation. I realize many will feel that i am sort of nit picking but from where i sit, there is a difference. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante